Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control. Problem solved.
There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break. If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be booming their insipid noise at us.
But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them. Those are my ear drums. And those are OUR airwaves they are using. And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad. This is not a Constitutional issue.
Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time. This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed. Even if say, that's a loud explosion. And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching. This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation. It's hardly precedent setting.
And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break. If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be booming their insipid noise at us.
But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them. Those are my ear drums. And those are OUR airwaves they are using. And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad. This is not a Constitutional issue.
Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
Nope.
They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either. The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
but kevin, where are the lawsuits? Where are the people like you in the process? Why not sue, on the grounds of unconstitutionality, IF you really believe this is all, unconstitutional?
Everything the federal government does is a constitutional issue, and if they're not given authority by the Constitution then they're not supposed to be doing it.
Nope.
They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either. The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing. If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
Isn't it? The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force? I would have to disagree.
Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
Why isn't their massive conflict at a global scale? Why isn't there a global authority?
Do you not comprehend that if Cuba (as an example) tried to send signals to Florida that were designed to interfere with some commercial broadcasters in Florida, like the National Broadcast Company or the ABC radio networks, we could JAM the Cuban signals?
Fuck if it came down to it, we might even be able and willing to destroy their transmittors.
But a fair argument can be made that we have agreed to permit our Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce. I just KNOW I read that somewhere.
And, of course, this differentiates between regulation of access to the airwaves (because it is a limited commodity) and improper government regulation of content.
Nope.
They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.
And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.
The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either. The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.
That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing. If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
Isn't it? The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force? I would have to disagree.
WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want. Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense. Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit. (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
Now then: Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)
The government already regulates the volume on television commercials, has for a long time. This bill is about re-writing the regulations.
Current regulation stipulates that the commercial can be as loud as the loudest part of the program on which the ad is placed. Even if say, that's a loud explosion. And so the ad makers have been exploiting this rule to make commercials ludicrously loud relative to the program you're watching. This bill seeks to remedy a poorly stated regulation. It's hardly precedent setting.
And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.
The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control. Problem solved.
Bullshit!
I pay these fuckers in Washington a lot of money every year and I want something useful for it in return.
You're easily pleased.
What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.
National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *
The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control. Problem solved.
There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break. If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be booming their insipid noise at us.
But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them. Those are my ear drums. And those are OUR airwaves they are using. And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad. This is not a Constitutional issue.
That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing. If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.
Isn't it? The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force? I would have to disagree.
WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"
Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.
But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want. Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.
I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.
The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense. Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit. (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).
Now then: Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.
The Constitution doesn't have to forbid the federal government from doing anything. If it doesn't explicitly give them authority then they're not allowed to do it. That's what the 10th Amendment tells us.
If the army and navy are implicit, then why does the Constitution mention them explicitly? Because the framers knew that the Constitution had to explicitly spell out the powers of the federal government. Implicit powers are the creation of statists intended to increase the power of the state. I would support a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the power to maintain an air-force, but let's not pretend the Constitution actually gives them the power to do so implicitly. That opens up pandora's box for statism.
The government should butt out, if you don't like the loudness of the commercials complain to the advertisers or stations, and for crying out loud learn how to use the mute button and/or volume control. Problem solved.
There should be no need for us to have to grab the remote for every fucking commercial break. If the advertisers would show a little responsibility and a touch of class, they wouldn't be booming their insipid noise at us.
But if they won't do it for the right reasons (and obviously the fuckers refuse to do that) then I say it's perfectly appropriate to impose it on them. Those are my ear drums. And those are OUR airwaves they are using. And if they don't like the imposition of such regulations -- too bad. This is not a Constitutional issue.
Yes, let's have uncle fix a problem that we can easily fix ourselves with the push of a button.
I have no idea if this is constitutional or not or if uncle should or shouldn't or are already involved. Push the damn button if the loudness of the commercials bothers you. It's really pretty simple. Of course, you'd have to move a body part to pick up the remote.
[mumbling to self] . . . I can't believe I'm arguing with people about a problem they can fix with the push of a button . . .
Bullshit? You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube? I can and I do.
In fact, I still PREFER that they fiddle around with that kind of relatively unimportant stuff over their efforts at doing such "business" as taking-over car companies, banks, credit agencies or the provision of national health care.
